By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life
I try always to be fair, especially to those writers whose personal opposition to our position is clear but who, as reporters, by and large do a fair job in reporting any phase of the abortion debate.
Enter Ruth Graham, writing for Slate.com.
Her topic? Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) which is important to pro-lifers, for obvious reasons, and almost as important to pro-abortionists for reasons that at first glance, seem more complicated.
After all, if you honestly believe in “choice,” why would you go to DEFCON 1 over the prospect that some women who have begun a chemical abortion but have a change of heart will have the opportunity to possibly reverse that decision before it’s too late?
The headline to Graham’s piece is “Abortion Reversal Seems Possible. We Still Shouldn’t Promote It.” What’s fascinating about her post is she acknowledges that there is more evidence (but not enough, in her view and in the view of abortionist/abortion apologists such as Daniel Grossman) that the technique can work.
Indeed, from my admittedly biased perspective, Graham makes a far stronger case that APR will work than she does that it shouldn’t be “promoted.”
For those who aren’t up to speed on this, chemical abortions/medical abortions/medication abortions/”RU-486” all refer to the same two-drug technique. The promise of APR is that as many as 68% of the women who do not take the second drug will carry their babies to term.
As Graham noted (in a backhanded admission/compliment), “Abortion reversal isn’t quite as outlandish at it sounds.” Even the most vociferous critic—Grossman—conceded to the Washington Post that the regimen “makes some biological sense.”
Graham explains APR succinctly: “Because the mifepristone pill [the first drug] essentially blocks progesterone, known as the ‘pregnancy hormone,’ the idea behind reversal is to overwhelm the woman’s system with progesterone before the mifepristone has a chance to take effect.”What’s changed in the debate over the last week is a study that appeared in Issues in Law & Medicine and was a much larger study (547 women) that previous investigations. As noted, it certainly wasn’t everything critics wanted, but it provided additional evidence APR works.
What do critics (by and large) mean by “promotion” that they so oppose? Requiring that state informed consent law include information that a chemical abortion can be reversed.
In the interests of genuine informed consent, why shouldn’t this be done?
National Right to Life article continues here
No comments:
Post a Comment